EVERY TEAM HAS STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES.
THEN WHAT DOES A HOLISTIC VIEW OF A GOOD AGILE (SCRUM) TEAM LOOK LIKE?
THE THEORY
Self sustaining – The team should be self sustaining – the team owns the development of product through running ceremonies, producing artefacts. No one person owns any particular part – the team is effective with 3 people as it is with 10. Focus and commitment is needed from all team members.
Transparency – Team members should be transparent and honest about the work being done / not done and holding each other accountable. This plays to Open-ness and Respect in scrum value.
Challenge the norm – The team should always be questioning and challenging team members to produce great work, that is not to fault each other, but to encourage and support each other to achieve greater things, with greater ease with each sprint.
IN PRACTICE
I started thinking about this when the workplace I was at started to grow. Management expectation was for all the teams to mature in scrum practice over a period of 6-12 months, from newly adopting the framework to being effectively using scrum to reliably produce good quality software. Or so they thought…
In reality, no team is alike, no product is alike, as such teams developed at different rate. Teams faced different challenges – and even when multiple teams were similarly challenged – they responded differently.
‘No team is alike, no product is alike, as such teams developed at different rate. Teams faced different challenges’
Then how can you ever ‘measure’ a team’s maturity and scrum effectiveness?
I would like to propose the following perspective on scrum ceremonies, artefacts and roles. Measure each team based on their actual performance in these situations.
- Team Self Effectiveness
- Team Cohesion
- Ability & how does team respond to changes during a sprint
- Ability to release ‘on demand’
TEAM SELF EFFECTIVENESS
‘Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things’
– Peter Drucker
An effective team will consistently do the right things, with the right processes a good team will produce stable outcomes. A less effective team will lose focus, individualism take over and quality of work lowers.
Ceremonies
- Consistently executed (Timely held, well attended)
- Effectively held (Focused, productive)
Artefacts
- Faithfully managed (Thoughtfully owned, seriously refined)
- Reflection of team’s work
Roles
- Commitment to each role (Playing your part)
- Swapping / borrowing each other’s hats (Playing ‘team’s part)
TEAM COHESION
‘Finding good players is easy. Getting them to play as a team is another story’ – Casey Stengel
How a team works together is a great yardstick of their maturity especially when tested for example during a sprint from technical challenge or time pressure. Good teams work cohesively, together. Less mature teams break apart.
Ceremonies
- Dealing with a challenge/topic (Constructively, Respectfully)
- While under pressure they look for solutions not excuses
Artefacts
- Good artefacts may not come from a ‘good’ team. You could have a successful sprint – but if the team had to fight through internal conflicts, building up distrust within the team and dissatisfaction of job, then that’s not a good team.
Roles
- Respectful of roles and boundaries
- Walk in their shoes
RESPOND TO CHANGES DURING A SPRINT
‘Change is inevitable, change is constant’ – Benjamin Disraeli
Change is a great test of maturity level of a team. A good team takes changes in strides, not lose momentum and keeps focused. A less mature team stumbles and struggles to make decision and produce little output.
Ceremonies
- Use ceremonies to manage and enable change
Artefacts
- How are artefacts affected – good teams reject or absorb change, they don’t leave it out cold.
- Managing outcome – driven by team or driven by individual
Roles
- Respond quickly and decisively
- Continue with confidence
ABILITY TO RELEASE ‘ON DEMAND’
‘Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort’ – Paul J. Meyer
The true measure of a team will always be the sprint product increment, the ability get that increment to market – allowing the business to reap benefit from the work from team is the ultimate measure of a good team from a bad one.
Ceremonies
- Uses ceremonies to plan, execute and review
- Not forgetting to celebrate ‘getting things done’
Artefacts
- Traceable artefacts leading to ‘production’
- How easy was it?
Roles
- Overhead management – team or individual
- Communications and celebration
IN CONCLUSION
I used the above 4 factors to review multiple teams I was supporting and found the following 3 major factors affected results
- Maturity
- Team individual / characteristics / Soft-skills
- Team member cultural background
Note that the only link to ‘productivity’ is in releasing useful product to the user. All other factors are about ‘the team’. In my experience I have found that the mentality is mostly placed on the value a team will provide to company, following that, it is all about the team and their happiness.
Scrum team performance and maturity therefore should not be solely measured on tangible outcomes, but instead the focus should be measuring how a team managed their work.
